If you need more proof that the west is doomed because of the broken and unsustainable social system, take a look at this latest revelation:

A SKIVING couple told last night how they claim £17,680 a year in benefits — and don’t even bother looking for work because it would leave them worse off. Danny Creamer, 21, and Gina Allan, 18, spend each day watching their 47in flatscreen TV and smoking 40 cigarettes between them in their comfy two-bedroom flat.

It is all funded by the taxpayer, yet the couple say they deserve sympathy because they are “trapped”. They even claim they are entitled to their generous handouts because their hard-working parents have been paying tax for years. The couple, who have a four-month-old daughter Tullulah-Rose, say they can’t go out to work as they could not survive on less than their £1,473-a-month benefits.

The pair left school with no qualifications, and say there is no point looking for jobs because they will never be able to earn as much as they get in handouts. Gina admits: “We could easily get a job but why would we want to work — we would be worse off.”

Oh, where to begin. Yes, this is GB, not the US, but the two country’s systems, despite anyone’s attempt to argue otherwise, fail in the same manner. Namely they discourage employment and self sufficiency, as the young lady which already has one welfare child the tax payers are subsidizing, points out. As these perfectly capable of doing work parasites also point out, they pretty much wasted their “free education”, yet they feel, and do so strongly, quite entitled to all of the freebees. That’s because their parents paid taxes!

The problem is that there is no longer stigma attached to sucking at the government’s teat. Politicians pretend to get rid of that to help make it easier for those in real need to seek help, but the result has been that the system got swamped by so many that feel like these two losers do that they are owed, for whatever reason. And the politicians don’t care anymore. It is the best vote buying scheme ever, so they will never fix the system.

Before anyone goes there. The problem isn’t that evil capitalism has made it impossible for these poor souls to find well paying jobs. It isn’t a rigged system that makes the rich richer and the poor poorer that’s at fault: it is the tremendously stupid choices made by these morons. They had free education and squandered that. Why work to get skills that could get you paid more anyway, if the completely idiotic and vile wealth redistribution scam masquerading as social help is quite content to go through the motions of pretending to protect the tax payers, but really doesn’t care at all?

These people are where they are because of choices. They likely came from hard working middle class parents, and now they are quite content to demand more free shit, always paid for by others, while they avoid responsibility and anything resembling work. That shit is for suckers. Meh, don’t take my word for it.

Danny’s father, 46, even offered him a job with his bowling alley servicing company — but could not pay him enough. Danny’s mum, 45, works as a carer, while Gina’s mum, 46, is a teacher and her dad, 53, is a manager with a security company. Yet their parents’ work ethic has not rubbed off on Danny and Gina. Instead, they claim they are entitled to benefits because of their parents’ tax contributions — and even complain they should be given MORE.

Gina, flaunting fake tan and perfectly manicured nails, said: “I don’t see that we’re living off the taxpayers, we’re entitled to the money our parents paid all their lives. “They’ve worked so hard since they left school and I’m sure they’d rather it went to us than see us struggle. They pay a lot of tax, and although they’d rather we weren’t in this situation and one of us had a job, they understand why we are where we are. We can’t help it, we’re stuck like it.”

And there you have it in a nut shell. Work is for suckers. Gimme, and gimme more, because I am entitled to it. And we let these morons vote. What a tragic revelation, huh? In the mean time those of us that find this attitude anathema to progress and civilization’s survival get hammered. We are told we need to give up more so people like Gina and Danny, with little baby Tullulah – whom is totally innocent since she only had the ill luck of being born to these fools, and despite the fact that she will have the same attitude they do and want more free shit herself, can not be held responsible in any way for this failure – can live it up.

Let’s also not kid ourselves that this scenario is a rare incident, because it tends to absolutely be the norm. The “I didn’t pay attention is school, have no skills, can not get paid enough if I worked to want to leave the freebees and be productive, and I am entitled anyway so what?” attitude is pervasive and stands as an indictment of the whole system that pretends wealth redistribution will solve whatever. Not of anything else. But the left will never admit what we have now is not just broke, but will break each and every country that is spending too much on people like this, even when they remain unable to afford it, and that we need to undo the free anything system and tell people that they need to produce and not slack.

Comments are closed.

I blogged a few weeks ago about the British welfare system, which has basically created 95% marginal rates for anyone who looks for work. The benefits are generous and tail off almost apace with earnings. So if you earn 20,000 pounds a year, your lifestyle is no different than if you were staying at home.

So if you earn 20,000 pounds a year, your lifestyle is no different than if you were staying at home.

I beg to differ, Hal. The poor idiot bloke working has to well, work. The other guy is sleeping late, playing X-box or PS3 all day and has all the free time in the world to do whatever. Big difference when you have both money and time instead of just money cause your time is spent working.

And therein lies, perhaps, the biggest problem with it. Take away the power they wield via the vote and I think things might change pretty quickly. The political beast would probably adapt pretty quickly but I might feel a bit better about it.

The problem is that there is no longer stigma attached to sucking at the government’s teat.

Except for perhaps… I dunno…. a double page spread in your nations most widely read newspaper calling them scroungers? Or the story below praising the person who ‘has worked for every penny’.

I’d argue that the attitude isn’t ‘pervasive’, but I guess that’s just opinion backed up with no facts.

I’ve been out of the UK for a few years now, but as I understood it, the programme was called welfare to work, and the benefits stopped if you turned down a job. Still had loopholes, but was solid in theory. Poosh – have things changed?

Except for perhaps… I dunno…. a double page spread in your nations most widely read newspaper calling them scroungers? Or the story below praising the person who ‘has worked for every penny’.

The sad thing Cress, is that while you & I feel they should be ashamed, they sure as hell sound like they are not only not ashamed, but angry that we dare question their choices and point out they should be.

I’d argue that the attitude isn’t ‘pervasive’, but I guess that’s just opinion backed up with no facts.

Would it surprise you that I felt the same way as you do here a long time ago, that is, until I really startted looking around and interacting with people that lived on the dole, and discovered they had neither shame nor a continence? We have these people on TV here in the US all the time, and the media tells us we should feel sorry for them when they demand we give them more free stuff because they are enttled.

I’ve been out of the UK for a few years now, but as I understood it, the programme was called welfare to work, and the benefits stopped if you turned down a job. Still had loopholes, but was solid in theory. Poosh – have things changed?

Clinton was dragged kicking and screaming to tack on the welfare to work piece, but Obama killed that as soon as he won. The last 4 years our numbers have swelled, and many are happier than hell that they have not even got to pretend they want to find work.

Would it surprise you that I felt the same way as you do here a long time ago, that is, until I really startted looking around and interacting with people that lived on the dole, and discovered they had neither shame nor a continence? We have these people on TV here in the US all the time, and the media tells us we should feel sorry for them when they demand we give them more free stuff because they are enttled.

You know, I’ve encountered precisely one person who didn’t really seem to have a problem living on welfare benefits. I’ve encountered far more who find it a demeaning experience and can’t wait for it to end. I’ve been blessed to maintain gainful employment throughout the recession, but friends of mine haven’t been so lucky, and the psychological toll that long-term unemployment (or underemployment, for that matter) can take on someone is very profound, unemployment insurance or not.

The Sun runs one of these stories about once a week, and have done for decades. Its no exaggeration to say they have a file of ‘scroungers’ that they can call upon whenever they need a double page spread on behefits moochers. It’s not a new thing is what I’m saying.

Wasn’t the work requirement something that came from teh states governors? #liberaltalkingpoint

“When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion – when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing – when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors – when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you – when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice – you may know that your society is doomed.”

You know, I’ve encountered precisely one person who didn’t really seem to have a problem living on welfare benefits. I’ve encountered far more who find it a demeaning experience and can’t wait for it to end.

That’s been my experience too. It’s not hard to find example of people ripping any system off, but it’s quite another to suggest (as if it were fact) that it’s the norm and these people comprise such a meaningful proportion of all those using the system that it requires radical change, or dismantling entirely, and/or “doom”. IMHO this is entirely an ideological narrative and there are far more important things to be concerned about.

Unfortunatly, its not enough to go by what people SAY, what the DO about it speaks more to thier actual view on how “demeaning” they think being on welfare is. Yeah they may talk a good game, but after being on welfare for a few years, that fact alone tells you how much they think it “demeans” them.

Unfortunatly, its not enough to go by what people SAY, what the DO about it speaks more to thier actual view on how “demeaning” they think being on welfare is. Yeah they may talk a good game, but after being on welfare for a few years, that fact alone tells you how much they think it “demeans” them.

And when you factor in reports like this one, it seems rather evident that a sizable chunk of the welfare recipient population is fairly comfortable “living it up” in their role as welfare recipient. If this doesn’t suggest that the system is broken at some level, then “the system is broken” is a meaningless phrase.

Unfortunatly, its not enough to go by what people SAY, what the DO about it speaks more to thier actual view on how “demeaning” they think being on welfare is. Yeah they may talk a good game, but after being on welfare for a few years, that fact alone tells you how much they think it “demeans” them.

I’m yet to see anyone cite the stats and convincingly make the case. It’s almost always an anecdotal situation which the ideologue presents as indicative of a huge issue. As if the anecdote proved it.

And when you factor in reports like this one, it seems rather evident that a sizable chunk of the welfare recipient population is fairly comfortable “living it up” in their role as welfare recipient. If this doesn’t suggest that the system is broken at some level, then “the system is broken” is a meaningless phrase.

There are some examples of people taking advantage of the system in your linked piece for sure, but I would argue there is no evidence in either of these pieces to demonstrate how widespread this misuse of welfare is. They simply provide accounts of how misuse can occur. Surely how widespread it is would be the first thing we’d need to know to determine how meaningful it is (in terms of $$ and % of welfare recipients misusing the system).

I would argue there is no evidence in either of these pieces to demonstrate how widespread this misuse of welfare is.

And I would argue that it’s still a problem, regardless of how widespread it is or isn’t. Taking my hard-earned tax dollars and giving them to some lowlife to squander on lap dances is definitely a problem, even if only one guy is doing it, and there is nothing in the article to suggest it’s only one guy. Quite the contrary.

Well you’ll be happy to know that as a result of the media storm among the right-wing news rags in the UK, that Danny Creamer is now gainfully employed and even took a “pay cut” to get himself off the couch. The Daily Fail reports:

During the interview Danny admitted that he would consider a job offer over £15,000, and on Wednesday’s show host Phillip Schofield said: ‘A businessman phoned up, and Danny was offered a labourer’s job, £60 a day at this James Oliver’s Property Developer company, and he’s taken it. They’ve arranged a meeting for tomorrow….’

Holly added, “They said they were impressed with Danny’s attitude yesterday and I think his benefits were coming in near to £18,000 so he will be taking a bit of a cut to £15,600, but at least he’s working… well done Danny.’

The feelings of humiliation were probably enough to push the lad into it. And if he’s smoking that much, he’s probably been spending the best part of his new pay cut on fags (that’s… er… cigarettes for you folks who might not know).

Imagine the furore if this had happened under a labour government. I guess that’s why the Daily Mail didn’t splash it all over their front page in huge screaming letters.

Benefits cheat mum, 23, now £64 a week better off after officials rule she is entitled to MORE than the amount she was actually stealing

Joanne Gibbons, 23, from Upton Priory, Macclesfield, was convicted of unlawfully pocketing £3,140 in income support while holding down two jobs. She originally claimed benefits legally but failed to notify the Department for Work and Pensions that she had a job at a shop and for East Cheshire NHS trust. When she was caught out, Gibbons was reassessed and told she could actually claim more money for family tax credits and child benefits.

And I would argue that it’s still a problem, regardless of how widespread it is or isn’t. Taking my hard-earned tax dollars and giving them to some lowlife to squander on lap dances is definitely a problem, even if only one guy is doing it, and there is nothing in the article to suggest it’s only one guy. Quite the contrary.

I totally agree that it shouldn’t happen. I wouldn’t want my tax dollars spent like that either. I’m a strong supporter of putting conditions on welfare and keeping tabs on how it is used. What I’m questioning is the idea that this is “proof that the west is doomed because of the broken and unsustainable social system” and that it’s “rather evident that a sizable chunk of the welfare recipient population is fairly comfortable “living it up” in their role as welfare recipient”. How is it rather evident? It can’t be because “there is nothing in the article to suggest it’s only one guy”.

Do you guys just thumb down everything I type?

Nothing I said here is in diagreement with Alex’s original post.

Real classy!

Welcome to the club. Didn’t take me long to figure out that it’s meaningless (the existence or number of thumbs down bears no relationship to what you actually write). It’s effectively high school. Well, perhaps not that advanced. Middle school.
Poosh won’t even respond to me. But he will sometimes address what I say in a way where it looks like he’s talking to someone else. I remember doing that when I was about 8. I don’t know of anyone over the age of about 10 who does it though. Maybe on sitcoms. Fascinating.

Welcome to the club. Didn’t take me long to figure out that it’s meaningless (the existence or number of thumbs down bears no relationship to what you actually write). It’s effectively high school. Well, perhaps not that advanced. Middle school.

Ive upvoted your posts before, normally the ones in which you threaten to leave a thread, or stop posting at all. Those are your best.

What I’m questioning is the idea that … it’s “rather evident that a sizable chunk of the welfare recipient population is fairly comfortable ‘living it up’ in their role as welfare recipient”. How is it rather evident?

From the article (emphasis added):

The Post found dozens of pubs, nightclubs and tobacco shops where welfare dough was dispensed — and presumably spent.

The Boiler Room, a gay dive bar in the East Village, had $120 and $60 transactions a minute apart on Jan. 17, 2011. The bar is around the corner from a Bank of America that takes EBT cards.

West Village tobacco shop Shisha International had EBT transactions ranging from $40 to $180 in 2011. The store is near at least two EBT-friendly ATMs.

Although the article only discusses New York City, statements like those above do indeed suggest that the problem is fairly widespread there. We can either assume that the problem is confined to New York City, or that it isn’t. I would argue that going for the former is simply naive; if it’s fairly widespread in the Big Apple, it’s likely widespread in other large cities, given human nature’s propensity toward corruption.

If you wish to insist that there is “no evidence in either of these pieces to demonstrate how widespread this misuse of welfare is”, I would suggest that you are simply being naive in giving humanity too much benefit of the doubt. Given human history and human nature, I am far less optimistic than you appear to be.

I guess where I come from attending a pub, nightclub or tobacco shop wouldn’t really be described as ‘living it up’, let alone prove an attitude about the role of someone who receives welfare. ‘Living it up’ would be buying expensive cars and going on expensive holidays.

From your link:

A database of 200 million Electronic Benefit Transfer records from January 2011 to July 2012, obtained by The Post through a Freedom of Information request, showed welfare recipients using their EBT cards to make dozens of cash withdrawals at ATMs inside Hank’s Saloon in Brooklyn; the Blue Door Video porn shop in the East Village; The Anchor, a sleek SoHo lounge; the Patriot Saloon in TriBeCa; and Drinks Galore, a liquor distributor in The Bronx.

Dozens of cash withdrawals out of 200 million? Personally I wouldn’t consider that to be a “sizable chunk”.

The state Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance (OTDA), which oversees the “cash assistance program,” even lists some of these welfare-ready ATMs on its Web site.

THAT is just ridiculous.

Again, I support hard and fast rules on welfare. Probably much harder than your average liberal. So we probably agree more than we disagree on the stuff that matters here. My complaint was really about all the Daily Mail type hyperbole.

I guess where I come from attending a pub, nightclub or tobacco shop wouldn’t really be described as ‘living it up’, let alone prove an attitude about the role of someone who receives welfare. ‘Living it up’ would be buying expensive cars and going on expensive holidays.

Well, a welfare check only goes so far. A lap dance at a nudie bar would be considered “living it up” when compared to buying milk and eggs.

Dozens of cash withdrawals out of 200 million? Personally I wouldn’t consider that to be a “sizable chunk”.

Neither would I if it were that simple, but I read it to mean that each individual recipient in question was making “dozens of withdrawals”.

I guess where I come from attending a pub, nightclub or tobacco shop wouldn’t really be described as ‘living it up’

Using Foodstamps or welfare checks on anything other than what is required to live could be considered “living it up”. If there is evidence that people are using government assistance to buy booze, or tobacco, they need to be thrown off the system IMO. I shouldn’t have to work so they can indulge in what I consider optional activities. I recall some of the stories Cigarskunk used to tell us on MW about the welfare office where he worked – anyone who argues that the US system is just fine is ignorant at best.